I think that if the series was to continue, we would see Rosie being looked after by Mrs Hudson or "friends" so that John and Sherlock could go on their adventures.  I would like John and Sherlock to live together, but I have mixed feelings about a child at 221B, just because I think it would change the atmosphere of the place if it became "child-friendly" (although I could see it more with an older child or teenager).   I do see Sherlock as being involved whether or not Rosie lives there - if John's family, Rosie is family, and he made a vow to her, and we see him being good with her in S4.

He's in the role of a very involved uncle!  Maybe he would also get very involved with organising things (like he did with the wedding).  I think he would be very protective.  He lost seeing his little sister grow up, and it might be nice for him to be invested in another child - maybe for Mycroft to have another chance to get it right too.

I've been trying to find somewhere to post this and couldn't find anywhere suitable, when it suddenly occurred to me that we've talked quite a lot here about Mark Gatiss' "softly, softly" comment. 
http://deareje.tumblr.com/post/15021413208/tumblr-is-gonna-love-this-intrigued-by-the

 "I always thought that what Russell T. Davies did in Doctor Who was extremely ground breaking in a slightly more subversive way than what it looked like. It never occurred to me that it was too on the nose, what he did brilliantly was introduce incidentally gay characters obviously as well as some more in your face ones. One of my favourite stories is Gridlock, there’s an elderly couple of ladies who are together and it just sort of passes by and that’s the way - softly, softly. That’s how the revolution happens as it were, you just become aware that people are incidentally gay. I think when the day comes that you have a big detective show where the first half hour was this man at work and he’s a maverick and all the usual things and then we went home and his boyfriend says, “Are you alright?” it was just a thing, then something would have genuinely changed. I think the problem still is it becomes the issue. I think the thing with gay characters is that it has to be an issue as opposed to being part of everyday life, which of course we all know is what it is.“

Anyway, I was delighted to read about Instinct, a mainstream US detective series, starring Alan Cumming. 
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2018/mar/26/alan-cumming-instinct-cbs-gay-lead-means-for-mainstream-tv
To me, it fits so well with Mark's comments - the fact that he has a husband is incidental.  I haven't seen it (don't know if we'll be able to in the UK), but as soon as I read about it, I thought about the interview above!   I think this is just the sort of thing that Mark meant! 
 

Last edited by Liberty (March 27, 2018 9:06 am)

I just think it's sad that some people didn't get that.

Oh, absolutely!

Finally! And what a shame that Mofftiss so far did not have the guts. Especially since Benedict and Martin would have made such a beautiful couple.

Fantastic!   This looks like a lot of fun!  I really like the look of this slightly older Holmes and Watson. 

I don't know if it's fair to say that Moftiss didn't have the guts, though.  I may be wrong, but I genuinely believe that it just wasn't how they saw the characters.  I know I've said it before, but perhaps it was because they came across the characters as children, when the idea of a platonic love would be so much more appealing than a "romance".  If you really see the characters as having a beautiful friendship, the greatest friendship in literature even, then maybe you wouldn't want to take them down a different route and make them lovers?

As I have said before :  I would have been delighted if Mark and Steven had gone down the gay route.
But I understand why they didn't and am pleased with how the series turned out.
Well, people might have hoped for all sorts.
But I remain delighted at the modern portrayal of the greatest ever literary male friendship.

Well, they definitely acknowledged and referenced Johnlock.  But in the end, they chose to show friendship, and I do believe it wasn't because of lack of courage, but because of the way they saw the characters.  Especially as the world has moved on since 2010 ... even if they'd been scared to show it then, it would have been much easier to do so in later years.  

(The Time Out article was supposed to be humorous, I think!)

I am sorry, Susi. This is something I do feel quite strongly about.
A show can be outstanding for many reasons and yes certainly, one of them could be for being ground breaking in presenting any partcular cause,  issue, group or whatever....
But all TV doesn't have to be like that.
Sherlock was a reimagining of the classic ACD stories, that is all.
It worked for me.
TV makers are beholdant to nobody except themselves and the company they work for...
Once again, this is why we have fan fiction.
Incidentally, maybe I've just been lucky:  but my gay friends don't have a problem with the show at all.

Last edited by besleybean (May 1, 2018 7:17 pm)